...but certainly no more so than the agenda behind Anthropogenic Global Warming" itself has been.
And you're also right in that ClimateGate brings "no new data". It's merely a confirmation of what so many have known all along; there is no "consensus" for AGW, and that the scientific process as the basis of the agenda has been subverted.
But that's where our agreement ends. Your argument that there is "no conspiracy" is no longer viable. Messrs Jones and Mann, the leading advocates of AGW have been caught behaving like politicians, and not the whiter-than-snow scientists you like to pretend that they are.
"Scientists" do not conspire against their peers with whom they do not agree. Instead of enthusiastically sharing their results and data with peers, they do not "hide" problematic data, or just erase it to avoid FOI requests. If their science was honest, and if they had real confidence in it, they would have freely released it to us all. But as even you must now know, they had no confidence in their data, and their science was far from honest.
Dana, why not a blog on why Messrs Jones and Mann felt the need to behave as they did if their science was solid? That would be far more interesting and unique as compared to the propaganda you are now posting.
Your only answer to ClimateGate" has been to deny that it at all matters and blame any controversy on the popular boogeymen of the unhinged left; big oil, the Wall Street Journal, and Fox News.
And as if that response isn't weak enough, now that the work product of the planet's leading advocates for AGW have been exposed as corrupt, you suggest that it's up to those who don't subscribe to the theory of AGW to make the chase against it. Basically, you're asking us to disprove a negative.
Not only do you get an "F" in science, you get one in logic as well.
ClimateGate is politics. It is not science.
It brings no new data. It claims a grand conspiracy among scientists is keeping “the truth” from coming out.
That’s nonsense. No conspiracy, on such a scale, could hope to succeed.
Someone would bring evidence to light, data designed to prove a scientific case. There is no such data because there is no such case.
There is, however, a political cause, and on this 68th anniversary of Pearl Harbor the Administration seems to finally have admitted the new political war and responded.
The cameras will be rolling on former Vice President Al Gore, who wants stronger action than that expected at Copenhagen to fight climate change. He will get a chance to make his case for the evening news.
This comes a month after a meeting of Nobel Laureates, in Berlin, that called for action. Gore has a Nobel Peace Prize for his work on climate change, Obama gets his for changing American foreign policy on Thursday, so the symbolism of today’s meeting is obvious.
More important is an EPA finding that carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases are in fact dangerous, which will enable it to issue rules limiting pollution. The finding has been in the works since the 2007 Supreme Court ruling requiring it to look at the possible dangers.
The usual suspects are crying foul, including the American Petroleum Institute and U.S. Chamber of Commerce, along with their media allies such as Forbes, The Wall Street Journal and Fox News.
It is good, at times of trial like this, to know who the enemy is, to have them come out in the open and give battle.
Enough shadowboxing. The war against oil has finally been declared.
